Vereor Nox's page

It's been addressed, Ryan replied back to an email I had sent on the issue confirming it was related to this email issue. I have deleted the post to prevent any further confusion.

many of these changes sound very good, good stuff GW

Not in Alpha my self but I will be listening to hear how those who are in alpha like these changes.

Stephen Cheney wrote:

We did this specifically so race changes wouldn't inevitably lead to heartache and confusion :) .

How does finally switching to the race you've wanted to play all along and suddenly having a bunch of abilities you trained for based on the old race (in the example you gave, dex based abilities) nurfed because the new race has bonus's to something completely different, NOT lead to heartache and confusion?

Or will you work out what races are going to be added and the bonus's they will get when they are added ahead of time before everyone makes there characters?

Or will people switching to new races at least get a chance to respec the abilities affected by the race change (again, from the above example, dex based skills)?

Stephen can correct me if my interpretation is wrong. However the way I read what he said.

rather then for example Elves giving you a +2 to dex, they would give you a +2 to dex related checks/skills/ect... Because of the way feats and progression works this makes a very big difference.

EXAMPLE: Elven two weapon fighter. with 17dex gets a race chance to a Half-Orc 2 weapon Fighter, switching his +2 dex for +2 Str. But now he is no longer a TWF because he doesn't have enough dexterity for the two weapon fighting feat.

So this way all characters no matter race need the same ability score to access feats and such, but the races get a racial bonus to say dex related actions as an example.

I believe this is a much better solution especially for a video game that will add races in the future.

Is it possible to upgrade from the $35 Adventurer to this new $50 Explorer?

Oh I remember this from UO, I used to rage so hard when I would die and a monster I couldn't kill was camping my body. It made me very upset (mind you I was 10-13 at the time so I was quite immature and irrational)

Now that I am older I think I would value the immersion factor of that. Travel only with what you are comfortable with losing, and if you die and cant get your corpse back to get your items or kill the mob that stole from you, get help or cut your loses.

I would be in favor of this. NPC looting does add quit a bit to the immersion factor. I mean why is it we can loot NPCs but they can't loot us.

Hell in the future perhaps maybe GW could take it a step further, goblins fortifying themselves with arms and armor stolen from fallen adventurers.

I have been anticipating World of Darkness, Pathfinder Online, Star Citizen.

It is a great disappointment to lose World of Darkness, However it inevitably means, that is less money I send to CCP and more money I send to GW.

I like the direction PFO is going, and I like the transparency and vocal participation GW has with the community. It is a stark contrast to WoD.

I know PFO doesn't have an amazing AAA Budget; but the choices and directions GW are choosing I feel are wise choices. Building PFO as a MVP as GW has stated in the past will allow them to get the most out of their budget, building a solid foundation to work from.

Then we the community can play and support GW to continue to grow build and develop the game into the future.

Another Contrast to WoD who had a great deal of ambition, and a great budget. But without support from the main office was left to wither and die until being discarded and cancelled.

Good work so far GW, we the community stand behind you, We not only want this sandbox, we NEED this sandbox.

I would want to pay the difference or get rid of some of my add-ons. Right now I have $35 pledge level with $50 worth of add-ons. for a total of $85 so if I strip down some add-ons and use my $35 I can get the the 100 dollar level with a light financial burden. however if I need to pay an additional $100 on-top of my $85 just for EE, its not worth it.

The only thing I would want to consider changing would be upgrading from Adventurer to Crowdforger to get into Early Access. I was under the impression that there was a wipe between Early Access, and Open Enrollment or Launch. After the management console had closed out I had heard that our progress would not be wipped, but the ship had already sailed for me to get into EA.

Is it possible to get into EA now or is that opportunity gone?

Very cool stuff.
Personally, on one hand I would like to see no regeneration and for power and health resources to need to be managed. But at the same time if that limits the players ability to play the game and partake in the game they wish to play then that is a bad thing.

On the other hand the typical heal rate in most themepark MMOs are pretty silly. Your Health Regen is so swift that you regain it in seconds to a minute out of combat. This leads to issues of being able to endlessly grind monsters because you essentially have unlimited health so long as you can survive the single encounter damage. This is bad because in a more serious game, would would be the point of waiting until someone is weakened from on encounter to take advantage of said situation.

@Stephen Cheney I feel GW is taking a safe middle ground which I would say is good. negligible in combat regain that can be buffed with abilities. With it increasing out of combat and again can be buffed with abilities. The trick here is balancing it out. I would like to see someone who hasn't skilled into endurance and or other fortitude type abilities to have lower regeneration rates out of combat so they can regen but are vulnerable longer after combat. While a person who has invested in those skills can get back up and recoup and regen health at a higher rate and have a shorter window of vulnerability.

I really love how GW is handling criticals, longer term debuffs that can eventually overcome and compromise an individual. I really love the potential of a fight between people and while a critical focused fighter might get slain by the other fighter. That fighter is now "wounded" and while he might regenerate and become healthier he will still have to deal with these critical wounds which may make him vulnerable to rogues en-route to town.

What we can't figure out is how much instancing is going to be a part of EQ Next. With destructible terrain, if it's not highly instanced, then the higher the character density the more destruction the world will be subjected to. From where we're sitting, we think the game has to be very highly instanced, or it will just be a ruined moonscape. That seems to argue against the first "M".

I believe they said something along the lines of most destructibility being temporary, No idea how long. But say someone destroys a forest or bunch of holes in the ground, it will regenerate. Not sure if its hourly, daily, weekly or what.

I think they also said something long the lines of purchasing a plot and only you and people you allow can destroy, construct on that plot.

The permanent change the talked about is say building a new city which is a 2 or so month public event for the players to take a part in.

Yea, if they had full unrestricted destruction you would have disposable servers that turn into ruined moonscapes before they reset like Minecraft.

@Nihimon
@Onishi

Thank you for correcting me on that, seems I was a bit beyond the curb on that issue.

That seems like a unique way of doing character training and would be a good way to empower people who want to use the same account for multiple subscriptions.

Yea Onishi so long as they are cosmetic, and or non game/character effecting perks then its perfectly fine to let people who pay multiple subscriptions gain them faster.

@Onishi Account unlocks based on total XP would be gained twice as fast by Destiny's Twin Characters. As that allows you to have to PCs training at once, for all other Characters they would gain that XP at a fixed rate as they can only have one character gaining XP at a time. (unless they change their mind)

They can either leave us with that advantage or remedy it by not counting the the "Extra" XP gained from DT as a result of doubling up on training.

Personally I think it should be a added benefit of DT but then again I am biased.

Originally I hated DDOs micro-transactions because you had to BUY EVERYTHING. But really its not so bad because you can earn the cash-shop currency via grinding Influence points, and some micro-transactions can be unlocked by just reaching a influence point threshold with no additional cost to the player. Sadly these unlocks where server based and not account wide, the Cash unlocks were account wide.

But I could see this game having similar cash-shop structure as DDO minus the Class unlocks as I don't think they should restrict the skills your character can acquire especially in the way they are designing a classless game.

@Nihimon I like your statement "perks that benefit the Player" not an exact quote but its what struck a code with me. I really like the idea that IF these total XP account progression account unlocks are in the game, the perks should benefit the player. Not bonuses or boons to the Character, but for the Player playing the game.

How to pull that off, I really don't know. The alternate starting experience as I mentioned sort of blurs the lines, it does benefit the character but to offer the player a boon of a altered early game.

But there should be player boons for players that only play one character.

IMO all races should be available to all players, no Cash-shop buying for races.

Unless it was an account-wide unlock. Then I would be fine with it being Unlockable based on say Total XP accured or some other method, or if you want instant gratifaction a cash shop option.

A cash shop item I would like to see however a race-change elixir or something. Kill you and resurrect you as a different race or whatever fluff you want. As I will likely play a human at the start but years down the road if they have fetchling or something I would likely be inclined to want to change and I would have no issue paying for that change.

As far as other account based unlocks go I am not sure. I like the idea certainly, but like you said it shouldn't be anything major or game effecting. More novel so that brings up a problem of, aside from races what would be other valuable unlocks.

Perhaps things that effect your early game experience. After you reach a certain level of exp, rather then starting a new character as a peasant you could start off as a noble with some noble clothing and a larger sum of gold, which would help in early levels but this bonus gold should be a pittance compared to what adventures would have beyond early game. (similar to rich parents feat)

Or maybe account based unlocks could affect knowledge skills.
I kinda like this actually knowledge could be account based skills, might be neat.

While I am not opposed to the idea, I find it very difficult to make it viable, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't have an amazing concept.

@ Jazz and Decius

You are both are right, my apologies, I edited the post, and edited it again to be even more friendly and less uh personal but sadly the second edit was past the 1hour marker.

I guess I was just a bit taken back by how upset some posts where despite the fact that what GW is doing is liberating MMOs from stale restrictive CPG (Class Playing Games) and giving us a real online RPG (Role Playing Game)

@Raoni Luna

I am absolutely grateful that your opinion is in the extreme minority.

I DO NOT want to play the Pathfinder Theme WoW Clone you so desperately want and feel the game should be.

The Pathfinder Online that Goblin Works is creating is the Pathfinder MMO We want, that is why we individuals in the Goblin Squad Backed the Kickstarter(s).

*edited to maintain a friendly atmosphere

I see alot of people upset that they "wont be able to craft myself".

This shouldn't upset you, first of all you get control over what is crafted and the processing, you have control in every step, you also have skill input.

Let me propose a question, which system is more immersion breaking?

1. WoW style where I amazingly have the ability to craft entire sets of armor within a 30sec craft timer.
This would allow us to craft hordes of equipment to flood a market or to instantly mount an assault.

2. The proposed queue system where you go to a factory, set up a job and off screen that armor is being forged and worked on a more lore friendly time-scale.
this would prevent a flood of equipment but allow for a steady trade-line. and would require the armament of an army to be a more time invested effort.

Alternatively if players really want to craft things themselves maybe GW could add a toggleable feature to allow your character to be rooted at a forge for hours on end to forge equipment, but that seems terrible IMO.

Neadenil Edam wrote:

Its more likely mobs will drop items only newer players will want to use.

Ryan's quote:

"We don't intend for usable items to be dropped by anything as loot from the system. You get them by crafting them, buying them, or looting dead PCs.

I suspect we have to leave some room at the bottom of the quality pyramid for some loot drops just to help make sure low level/new PCs don't get too squeezed, but that stuff will not be meaningful to the in-game economy."

yea I really like the fact that for the most part everything in this game will be crafted. Thats awesome.

Perhaps low-level bandits outfitted with basic/shoddy stuff would be logical to help low-levels. Unless they let us run around wielding dogslicers xD

Additionally with the threading system, our starter gear may last us until we can replace it with something player made! Which would further support Ryan's statement that you won't get gear from mobs but rather from PC crafting.

It's been said that there shouldn't be any game-mechanical advantage to being Heinous. On the other hand, there already are mechanical penalties to being Heinous. I think it will be a tightrope for GW to walk, providing just enough benefit to make it playable, but not enough benefit to make it more popular than being non-Heinous.

Yea I think this is how it should be balanced.

There is a mechanical penalty for gaining heinous/villain flag.

There is no mechanical benefit for gaining heinous/villain flag.

However the heinous/villain penalty is offset by the actions which trigger these flags being quicker/cheaper/easier actions then the by the books counterparts.

The villain/heinous actions should not be more powerful or more effective then their counterparts but rather more efficient.

The efficient should be attractive enough that the player has a hard choice between becoming heinous/villainous in the name of efficiency or maintain their good standing but doing actions by the book.

Risk/Reward

while the evil action isn't any more powerful or potent then the good actions, but rather a unsavory shortcut.

slightly[/b] more powerful in certain and specific situations.

Think of it like the 'Defilers' of the Dark Sun Setting. You can increase your power by embracing evil and despoiling the world around you. On the surface, that doesn't sound too bad to a power gamer, but to the Role Players, this could be a big sticking point.

To be Heinous isn't "Oh, I feel like kicking a puppy today!", it's a dedication to Evil that stains the...

I completely agree with heinous acts being the "quicker, cheaper, easier" actions then their by the books counterparts.

I do not think heinous should give you power or act like level 4 vampirism in TES.

However if they did take that route then it should not apply to heinous but rather you should not get that buff until you achieve the 24hour Villain flag.

If they did that however their should be a buff associated with all the 24hour flags.

But that opens up the issue that all the 24 hour flags are negative.

So we are further rewarding evil or bad play, Unless their is a positive action flag that counters that play.

then it might end up being a Min/Maxers dream because I can be a Villainous Assassin and gain 2 flag buffs while the Champion only gets his one.

the Concept for additional effects for 24hour flags such as villain isn't a bad idea at all, it does however pose a balance issue.

Then I certainly hope to run into you Xeen xD, yea I tend to run into a lot of nocturnal Americans, a good amount of Aussies and the occasional German. At least in the games I play lol.

mmhmm I was thinking that the "loadout" system would be a balancing factor to keep exp boosters in check. But being as the game is time-based (which is great) then perhaps EXP boosters would be pay-to-win and if thats the case then exp boosters should absolutely not be in the game.

No skin off my back I am just thinking of none pay to win cash shop options if its pay to win it should be scratched off the list. No objection there.

Then I would give more emphasis on cosmetics.

One of the things that I thought was really awesome about Path of Exiles was the cosmetic particle effects you could get.

instead of regular fire you could have green, purple, black flames. or maybe a fireball that looks like a dragon. I would pay for that!

Its a changing market for games and subscriptions are going out the door, I would like to see a subscription option surely, as long as it was worth the sub. But its very likely their will be a cash shop of some sort.

However if they did go for a subscription model I would absolutely want to see a PFO equivalent to the PLEX. That might be very good once people get started.

Anyone looking for exp "boosts", for cash, that allow faster earning of exp than a paid subscription is going to be sorely disappointed.

That certainly smells like pay-to-win.

well if their is a paid subscription it should automatically include said boosts.

While boosts tend to be controversial, They are something that people will actively buy and provide a consistent income for GW.

That said it really depends on how exp and progression works. If in dev tests they find it does make it Pay to Win, then they should opt to not include boosts. But if it allows players to just get to a point of power at a faster rate while hitting a plateau and going broader without becoming more powerful then none boosted players.

I think in that case boosts would be a safe to include. That said again any subscription should include said boosts as part of the subscription.

Well I am American, EST Coast GMT -5

However like I said I work a late shift and usually don't get home until 12:30am (00:30) and tend to stay up until 2am (02:00) - 4am (04:00)

1) Pay to Win

Absolutely NOT

2) Lottery Tickets Keys

No I hate this in games, it is absolutely immersion breaking.

3) What products/services do you want to see

I will address this outside of quote

Will answer below

4) Cash shop Auction House

No, I quit playing Diablo 3 because of how unfun it made the game.

5) Character Rebuild (Respec) for money. - I can see this being very VERY popular, so much so that GW would probably put a cooldown on it.

Sure I would be absolutely be fine with respec tokens. this is as long as they have a cooldown associated with it, and the item should be sellable on the market. So players can pay real money then sell them on the market for Gold much the same way EVE does PLEX.

6) Character Re-name Tokens - Possibly gamebreaking if PCs are identified only be character name

Depends on how name recognition, political standing, bounties, assassination contracts are handled. I would hate for someone who is willing to spend obscene amounts of money just to dodge bounties and assassination contracts. Also players would want their political standing to transfer over. I am fine with this but its GW call.

7) Kingdom/Land/Settlement upgrades (Non-Cosmetic or mechanically beneficial)

No this would fall into Pay to Win,

8) Kingdom/Land/Settlement visual modification

Sure this is fine, as long as its cosmetic only, I would be fine with someone wanting purple flame braziers for example.

9) Kingdom/Land/Settlement Hex Deeds (For actual real $$ purchase)

No this should be something that has to be earned through in-game means.

9) Player Character Titles (Baron, Duke, etc)

Like the honorific title add-on ? Sure I am absolutely fine with this and hope to see more title options.

10) Experience Boosts

A boost to the passive EXP gain. hmm This is something that may be controversial but I think this is fine and will be popular it will help people advance more quickly but because of the way GW is going to do feats and slot-able abilities it won't allow you to be more powerful but rather more diverse then someone who doesn't buy the boosts but you can both achieve the same with time. So in that regard this is just a convenience and I am fine with EXP Boost.

11) Kickstarter Boons

some of them should be Kickstarter like memorial and possibly pharasma. but other boons like the region traits, starter kits, and honorific titles should be purchaseable certainly.

12) Uniquely Researched Spell/Special Attack Research Materials (For players wishing to make their own, new spells or slotable attacks)

Sounds cool, but also sounds like it could be broken / pay to win if they found a way to make it balanced and not pay to win then great so long as said materials can be sold on market and bought for gold again much like PLEX.

13) Mini-Pets - Non combat functional

yea sure lots of people love these things so why not.

14) Exotic Mounts, animal companion skins

Sure these are essentially cosmetic reskins, I would be fine with this

15) Opening a Chartered Company - Meaning each guild (Post EE) will cost some amount of "coin" to activate.
No this would put a real money barrier in the game which is not something I think should be in the game.

3) What products/services do you want to see

1. I would like to see purchasable/slot-able particular/animation effect kits much like in Path of Exile.

Some examples when you have said orb slotted all your fire spells with have a eerie green flame instead of the standard fire, or possibly nether purple flames instead of the standard. It would be a object that is purchasable for cash but could be put on the market and sold to other players for gold.

2. Re-spec tokens are a great thing just as you addressed earlier.

3. Race Change Tokens, further down the line if they release your favorite race it would be nice to have the option to pay for a race change.

A class change token wouldn't be required as we can with time pick up multiple "classes"

3. Exp Boost, I guess this would function similar to in DUST where you get passive exp points and the booster just increases the gain of those for the duration of the booster.

4. A optional subscription model that would give you boons like

Automatic EXP boost
Monthly Cash Shop Currency
Other BOONs that would be useful, desired but not game breaking or Pay to Win.

something that in total would make the subscription worthwhile.

@Zen
I still would like to participate more in that, sadly it seems to be dead when I get off work (I work the late shift)

At launch that is hard to say.

It is the River Kingdoms so their are rivers that you could likely get transport boats in play, and along with that smuggler boats and pirate boats.

That said because they are planning for a MVP (Minimum Viable Project)at launch as to maintain depth without stretching themselves too thin by adding a multitude of shallow features.

I am doubtful we will see that type of play at launch, but I am confident it will get added to the game later down the road. The more desire the sooner it becomes a possibility.

I would also recommend Ultima Online as it was in its heyday. There are some private servers that still run classic UO. UO in its current state is a sad affair as EA has utterly trashed the game, But it was an amazing open world sandbox in its heyday.

My all time Favorite Deity is Nethys. However as an Assassin who lurks in the night and strikes from the shadows. It would have to be The Mightnight Lord, Zon Kuthon.

@KarlBob well everything we are discussing works really well in a free form contracting system similar to EVE. So you might learn that its not smart to put resources into the contract and instead put up some money that would be returned if failed. OR have the person who picks up the contract pay some up-front insurance money that is returned upon completion.

Contracts in EVE are wonderful, they allow you to contract pretty much anything but you do need to read the fine print because the Pen can be used to deceive. So yes this would allow some mechanically sound scamming or underhanded business practices which is countered by being a smart player and reading the fine print. Once you get burned you will learn to read.

Vereor Nox wrote:

ooh yea contract bidding sounds really good. It would be nice to apply and send messages and things too, so rather then a auction that keeps going lower, you get say 3 bids, 1 is from someone whos at say 2k another at 1k, or another for 1.5k with more experience then the 1k bid, and possibly offers some sort of guarantee to sweeten the deal and you decide to take the 1.5k bid. I really love the idea of a bidding contract.

Or perhaps he has higher reputation? Maybe even implementing reputation earned by fulfilling crafting contracts?

Oh yes, I would like to see that, like a upfront value on contracts and then a penalty. Like say I will pay you 2k for 200 Ore in say 3 days. you take the contract and I will give you 1K upfront, after completion you recieve the other 1k and 500 rep. or something, if you fail, you owe me 1k or 1.5k and lose 500 rep. Or something along those lines.

ooh yea contract bidding sounds really good. It would be nice to apply and send messages and things too, so rather then a auction that keeps going lower, you get say 3 bids, 1 is from someone whos at say 2k another at 1k, or another for 1.5k with more experience then the 1k bid, and possibly offers some sort of guarantee to sweeten the deal and you decide to take the 1.5k bid. I really love the idea of a bidding contract.

@Pryllin

@Golnor

As pointed out by kakafika
the "I Shot A Man In Reno Just To Watch Him Die" post they talk about reputation and alignment scaling with the difference between people.

So if we figure 500 Loss on the Good/Evil axis as a base-line that number will increase or decrease depending on who you kill.

(random Numbers) Say you kill someone who is at -7500 obscenely evil yet with no flag allowing you to kill him with no penalty, then you may lose perhaps 10-50 points.
Or
If say you kill someone with 7500 obscenely good again with no flag allowing you to kill him with no penalty, you may instead lose something like 2500 or 5000 points.

Again those numbers are pulled out of no where but to give the concept for scaling penalty for the difference of alignment.

@kakafika Ahhhh yes I completely forgot about that, that would definitely help balance the systems. With 500 as a base average, you could potentially only lose say 50 or maybe lose a value as high as 2500 depending on how good the person was. Of course those numbers are made up but yes Great point Kakafika!

I'm pretty happy with this.

My only problem is 500 evil points seems a bit low for murder. A fresh good character would have to kill 15 people in cold blood before they'd be considered evil, and any single good act could up that to 16 or more.

I know you have to make allowances for an MMO, but it still seems a bit too forgiving.

This is a valid concern but its hard to say whether or not it would be an issue without knowing how slow or steady the passive drift back to good would be. Plus at a rate of say 50 good points per good quest. It could take you 10 "good deeds" to make up for that 1 kill.

Its definitely something that could be concerning that GW should keep an eye on (all alignment drifts for that matter, make sure its not too easy for a LG to be CE using the system maintain a LG status) But this is something that we will have to wait until we see it in action and if it is a concern GW could easily adjust the values.

This base system for the alignments they set forth looks solid and I am very pleased with it.

Bravo GW there was alot of discussion on the forums about alignment grinding and the inability to be true neutral and other issues with "Fixed" alignment growth.

Presenting this system where we the player choose the alignment that we passively drift towards is a wonder and elegant solution to this problem.

I understand the need for alignment restricted settlements for residents and citizens of that settlement. But I think there should be the ability to "white List" specific individuals who don't match the alignment of the town, to come into the town freely and use services that they've been white listed and allowed access to.

Lets say for example there is a LG town and a NN druid. The druid wonders in the wilderness nearby with his own little POS in that wilderness block who often travels to the town and provides useful information about Escalations in Wilderness. In return the LG settlement white lists him to come into the town freely and use the services and training. Its a mutually benefit.

In the event that they cancel his white list status then he is treated a s trespasser like all other people that do not fit the 1-step rule.

Wooo Clicking Refresh paid off xD, And is that a Black Sabbath War Pigs reference ?

I love Time based progression, It is the most freeing thing in an MMO. When your a merchant or crafter, you can focus on roleplayeing your character passively progresses in your economic endeavors while you play how you want to play while having fun. Vs being forced to take a break from playing the game you want to play to go do quests, grind goblins and orcs. That grinding progression is what fundamentally makes theme-park games anti-RP to RP in those games you NEED to go out of your way and pretend and imagine. VS a sandbox game which allows you to play the role which makes RP come naturally and is not forced because the RP part IS the game thats what your doing. Time based progression frees you up to play anyway you want.

UO was a bit different though, you had a 700 skill point cap, and often if you wanted to be optimal you had to dip a little bit into magic, So yea sadly in UO, there where optimal ways to play and it was the battle mage. Hopefully PFO will have better balance.

Personally I don't like the word Auction House. I'd much rather it be a market. In Other MMOs I believe they use the Term Auction House to differentiate between a Global Player Market, and the local NPC markets.

That said I would like to see a Player Driven Local Markets. But with skills you you can buy and sell at longer ranges. So you never ever get a Fully global view, but you can view the market places within say a large region of the map that incorporates several settlements local markets. However after buying a item from another settlement you still need to go pick up the item or contract for it to be delivered.

As stated above this is similar to the EVE market. and eventually I would like to see PFO have a fairly 100% player driven market place, with an exception being the NPC towns will have NPC market places with an unlimited supply of all the low tier basics of pretty much everything you'd need as a new player.

I have a feeling that the local market is what GW is planning for anyways. Quite honestly having a global market would sort of ruin what they are going for with PvP flags like the outlaw and the Traveler (I think that is the N PvP flag for crafters/merchants) because with a global market merchants would never need to leave town. but with a local market it would be profitable for a merchant to run caravans and transport good, or at lease hire someone to do that for him/her.

I believe this is another area where GW will take a page out of the EVE play book. letting you filter by Settlement/Region/territory or something basically buy from just this settlement buy from all settlements within a Zone, buy from all Zones within a huge zone. Or something, that way Its not Global, but you can buy from other nearby settlements and if you do buy fromy a nearby settlement you have to go pick it up, or make a contract for it to be delivered.

@Bringslite Yup Yup "Silky Supple Flamming Adamantine Bladed Scarf +1"

Planning time!

Primary weapon: An adamantine two-handed hammer, with stunning and defense-decreasing attacks, focused towards single targets.
Secondary weapon: Axe and shield, with taunting and defensive abilities, focused towards multiple targets (tanky style)
Third weapon: Crossbow, with slowing and rooting abilities.

I confess, I like planning. I sometimes make characters for kicks.

I plan on using an adamantine bladed Scarf...

Heck they could do something where the mini map is just a map, and you can pen in your own waypoints and landmarks. Using knowledge checks or some sort of skill could allow you to possibly see NPC, or notable landmarks, or even maybe let you view landmarks penned in by other players. Just a thought

I'm sorry Hardin but that isn't a matter of interpretation

Real-Time systems and Turn-Based systems are well defined.

In a Turn based System only 1 player is performing actions at a time, He takes his turn, others wait for their turn. When all players take their turns that concludes the round.

While in Real-Time games players take actions simultaneously and play "in real time"

That said after doing some research I would have to say you are both right.

The game is a real-time game, however because of the pseudo windows of action it is a bit unconventional.

This is very similar to a Sub-Type of turn based games referred to as Ticks based games.

"Tick based games" where you are allowed a number of actions that are refreshed or reset after each tick which can be hours, days, weeks, ect..

So it would seem, the most accurate description of this game with a tick based system on such a micro time scale would be Real-Time Tick based game or a Tick based Real-Time game.

which would be considered a sub-set of the real-time genre with heavy influence from the turn-based sub-set of tick based games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-keeping_systems_in_gam es

@Vancent There are no servers. It is going to be Single-Shard game. At least that has been my understanding

hmmm Karlbob that is a very good point. Even though it would be immersion breaking to have a mini-map by default it is indeed a necessary evil as A mini map will be available to those who don't want to follow the rules.

That said the suggestion to only send the essential minimal data needed for the game to function as intended and display that on the mini map.

With the option of using better maps, better map-reading skills, or awareness skills to trigger the sending and display of more advanced and detailed information would be wonderful.

I want there to be a mini-map. If there isn't one, then people will make a client hack that adds it back in, making it so only those that cheat have the benefit of it. What I would like, is for the mini-map to take a page from the Eschalon series, and show more detail based on your cartography skill level.

Ooooh I would like that.

Have a basic map, Cartography skill can give you a very detailed map

Maybe a mining or ore-related skill allows you to see Nodes.

So you could have a map with little detail but can see the nodes but are unaware of the Terran, but having both skills will give you a nice detailed map with detailed locations of mineral/ore nodes.

I feel as though a mini map wouldn't fit the game as much as it would be helpful and convenient I don't like the idea of it. I would however love the idea of people having the ability with the proper supplies and skills to make a map of their own to make their own landmarks and get updates on by their own adventures and to share or sell to others.

You bring up a good point. Perhaps an even-ground alternative would be allow players with proper skills as listed above along with the Imbrication quote. To create appropriately detailed maps.

You can then use/sell these maps, players with the maps could open them up (UO or MMO style in its own moveable on-screen asset).

Then the cartographer created map can orientate its self North-Aligned (like a mini-map) This would function as the character knowing how to hold the map properly (could use a survival skill check for this if the character fails it then they would the map improperly which would mis-orientate the map)

This I feel would be a nice compromise and be really neat feature.
So no mini-map by default.
you need to make or purchase a map to gain a map.
The quality of map and listed nodes depend on who crafted it.
and the ability for the map to function as a accurate mini-map can vary based on the users skill checks.

I would like to see a unique mechanic added to Enforcer and Champion. As far as I am aware the only Long Term flags with a "Mechanic" (like SAD and OBS) is the Outlaw and Assassin respectively.

@Keovar

My dear Sir Keovar, I give you my word that I will not steal from you, nor unlawfully wrong you.

If some dishonest dishonorable individual were to wrong you, I would certainly take up a lawfully binding contract to deal with said individual.

Traps and Contracts will be your friends against bandits.

"If you wish for one to Dread the Night, you need only Revere the Night."
--Vereor Nox

mmmhmm yes indeed sounds fun for a bit but it would get old. I agree, plus you couldn't do things like disguise walk in buy gear stake the place out hide someplace and put on the mask then go after your target (although I do think you need to have the flag or mask or both active for an hour, I'll double check that)

Maybe as you said the masks can only be completed at assassin faction building or something that would be neat and not nearly as limiting.